Interactionsim And Labbeling Theory Flashcards
Social construction of crime
- interested in how and why certain acts come to be defined to labelled as criminal
- no act is inherently criminal
- it is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant, but the nature of societies reaction to the act
- Becker - “social groups create deviance by creating the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders
- moral entrepreneurs - the people who lead moral ‘crusade’ to change the law
- this has 2 effects
1. Creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’ -those deviants who break the new rules
2. Creation or expansion of a social control agency to enforce the rule and impose liable on offenders
Social construction of crime - platt
Platt (1969) - ‘juvenile delinquency’ was created as a result of a campaign by upper class Victorian moral entrepreneurs, aimed at protecting young people at risk
- created separate category of offender - state powers extended
- social control agencies campaign for change too thus increasing their power
- marjiuana tax act 1937
Who gets labelled?
- the factors which affects whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted:
1. Interactions with agency’s of social control
2. Appearance, background and personal biography
3. Situation and circumstances of the offence - agencies of social control are more likely to be liable for certain groups as criminal or deviant
- philliavn and briar - police are more likely to arrest a young person based on physical cues, and make judgements about a younger persons character. Decisions are also influenced by suspects gender, class and ethnicity as well as time and place
Cicourel: negotiation of justice
- decisions to arrest are influenced by stereotypes
- stereotypes about what the typical delinquent is more likely to lead them to concentrate on certain ‘types’
- class bias - w/c areas and people more likely to fit the type
- this led to more patrols in those areas which leads to more arrest which confirms and reinforced the stereotype
- probation officers - common sense theory that juvenile delinquency caused by broken homes. Seen as more likely to offend in future and less likely to support non custodial sentences
- justice is not fixed by negotiable. M/c less likely to be charged - doesn’t fit the stereotype and parents able to negotiate successful outcomes
Stats vs resources
- stats recorded by the police cannot give us a valid picture of the patterns of crime and cannot be used as a resource
- should be treated as a topic to investigate
Social construction of crime stats
- interactionists see crime stats as socially constructed
- labels attached to individual suspects affect the outcomes
- stats therefore only tell us about the activities of the police and prosecutors, not the crime that is out there in society or who commits it
- stats are counts of the decisions made by control agents at ‘decision gates’
Dark figure of crime - difference between official stats and the ‘real’ rate of crime
Alternative stats - victim surveys, self report studies may help us gain a more accurate view of the amount of crime.
Limitations = forget, conceal, exaggerate, often include only a section of less serious offences
Primary and secondary deviance
- lembert (1951) - primary deviance refers to deviant acts that have not been publicly labelled. Secondary deviance is the result of social reaction - labelling
- pointless trying to find the causes of primary deviance as it is so widespread and often trivial
- secondary deviance = result of being stigmatised, shamed, humiliated, shunned or excluded from normal society
- once labelled individuals may only be seen in terms of this label = master status this overrides all other ‘labels’
- creates a crisis for self concept or identity. If label is accepted = self fulling prophecy
- acting out the label = secondary devaince
Devaint career
- secondary deviance = hostile reaction = reinforcing ‘outsider’ status = more deviance/deviant career
- deviant subcultures
- young - study of hippy marijuana users
- it is not the act itself, but the hostile societal reaction that creates serious deviance
- downes and rock (2003) - cannot predict whether someone that has been labelled will have a deviant career
- deviant career = common outcome of labelling but not always inevitable
Deviance amplification spiral
- used to describe the process in which the attempt to control deviance leads to and increases in the level of deviance. This leads to greater efforts to control it and in tuen this produces higher levels of deviance skill
- more control = more deviance in escalating spiral
- Stanley cohen (1972) - folk devils and moral panics
- similar to lemerts idea of secondary deviance
- societal reaction doesn’t lead to successful control but to further deviance which leads to further control
Labelling and criminal justice policy
- increases in attempt to control and punish young offenders can have the opposite effect
- Triplett (2000) - increasing tendency to see young offenders as evil and to be less tolerant of minor deviance
- CJS labelled offences such as truancy more serious = harsher sentences
- results in an increase rather than a decrease in offending
- adds weight to argument that negative labelling pushes offenders towards a deviant career
- if we make and enforce fewer rules for people to break = reduced deviancy
Reintegrative shaming
- Braithwaite - identifies a positive role of the labelling process - there are two types of shaming:
1. Disintegrative shaming - not just the crime but the criminal is labelled as bias and the offender is excluded
2. Reintegrative shaming - labels the act but not the actual meaning if you have done something wrong it doesnt make you a bad person - avoids stigmatising the offenders as evil whilst making them aware there acts are not acceptable and the negative impact it has on society - encourages forgiveness
- avoids secondary deviance
- crime rates tend to be lower in societies where Reintegrative shaming is the dominant way of dealing with offenders
Mental illness and suicide: the sociology of deviance
Durkheim - used to show sociology as a science
- used official stats, claimed to have discouraged the cause of suicide in how effectively society interacted individuals and regulated their behaviour
- interactionists reject Durkheim so positivist view
Douglas - stats are socially constructed
- before death is labelled as a suicide dependent on interactions between social actors
- relatives may feel guilty about preventing the death so many want misadventure
- lemert - study of paranoia
- individuals dont fit easily into groups = primary deviance = labelled as odd and excluded
Evaluation of labelling theory
- deterministic - once somebody is labelled, a deviant career is inevitable
- emphasis on negative side of labelling. Realists argue it ignores the real victims of crime
- tends to ficus on less serious crimes
- assumes offenders are passive victims of labelling - ignores that individuals may actively choose deviance
- fails to explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place
- implies without labelling deviance would not exist
- recognises role of power in creating deviance - fails to analyse the source of this power
